I know that casting a horoscope involves checking the positions of the planets at the time of birth (or other significant time) and predicting characters and events based on those positions. Is that not enough information to test whether there is any merit to astrology, or do you think it is necessary to understand the various methods of casting horoscopes?
(To put it another way - can you not demonstrate that there is no possible way to get from a set of inputs to a desired output, even without testing some particular operations which are said to do the trick?)
So when you say "Nonsense, it's impossible!" you don't actually mean that you have made up your mind, bt you are still open to proof? I think you need to be clearer about how you express yourself, because "Nonsense, it's impossible!" sounds like a pretty final judgement to most people.
I guess you mean astrologers when you write astronomers above.
Astrology is what astrologers do, not what you or I might imagine they should be trying instead. Astrologers claim their methods work; therefore those are the only methods I am interested in testing. I'm no longer in the business of testing astrology, but your last question is irrelevant anyway; the results have to be demonstrably reproducible if they are meaningful, and it doesn't matter much to me (well, except in terms of how I use my time; and more on that in a moment) whether it is me or the astrologer who does the test (under suitably controlled conditions of course
( ... )
"So when you say "Nonsense, it's impossible!" you don't actually mean that you have made up your mind, bt you are still open to proof?"
I mean I am extremely confident in my dismissal, and it would take some extremey impressive proof to change my mind. If you'll alow me to be snarky in response, I'm pretty certain there are a lot of propositions to which your initial response would be "Nonsense!", but to which you remain, in theory at least, open to having your mind changed by sufficiently strong evidence. "Show me!" will not be your response to someone who claims Menzies Campbell is a lizard in human disguise - there is a big difference between what conclusive scientific proof requires and what either of us would actually require to be convinced, but I'm being clear about my pragmatic stance
( ... )
(To put it another way - can you not demonstrate that there is no possible way to get from a set of inputs to a desired output, even without testing some particular operations which are said to do the trick?)
Reply
I guess you mean astrologers when you write astronomers above.
Astrology is what astrologers do, not what you or I might imagine they should be trying instead. Astrologers claim their methods work; therefore those are the only methods I am interested in testing. I'm no longer in the business of testing astrology, but your last question is irrelevant anyway; the results have to be demonstrably reproducible if they are meaningful, and it doesn't matter much to me (well, except in terms of how I use my time; and more on that in a moment) whether it is me or the astrologer who does the test (under suitably controlled conditions of course ( ... )
Reply
I mean I am extremely confident in my dismissal, and it would take some extremey impressive proof to change my mind. If you'll alow me to be snarky in response, I'm pretty certain there are a lot of propositions to which your initial response would be "Nonsense!", but to which you remain, in theory at least, open to having your mind changed by sufficiently strong evidence. "Show me!" will not be your response to someone who claims Menzies Campbell is a lizard in human disguise - there is a big difference between what conclusive scientific proof requires and what either of us would actually require to be convinced, but I'm being clear about my pragmatic stance ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment